D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm pretty sure the answer you're going to hear will be something like: "Well, nobody is forcing them to play".

I am quite used to GM-centric arguments, where a behavior is morally unacceptable from players, but GMs doing it is not only right and proper, it's expected or even required. Doesn't make such arguments not incredibly tedious, mind, but I expect them.

 

[AlViking]

So the GM is perfectly cool enforcing it on a group that doesn't want it?

I don't get the asymmetry here. Trying to make a GM run a game they aren't keen on is the worst thing ever. But trying to make players play a game they aren't keen on is fine?

Nobody can force a person to play a game they don't like. If a core assumption of any optional leisure time activity doesn't work for you and you can't find people that will change that assumption, perhaps the activity isn't for you.

edit - it has nothing to do with "morally unacceptable", it's about accepting that some people simply disagree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Seems to me the GM should take this as a moment to reflect, if they articulate a premise and genuinely no one actually adheres to it.

They can reflect, but that doesn't mean they should just start running what the players want if it wouldn't be fun for them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So the GM is perfectly cool enforcing it on a group that doesn't want it?

I don't get the asymmetry here. Trying to make a GM run a game they aren't keen on is the worst thing ever. But trying to make players play a game they aren't keen on is fine?

This is assuming tradition distribution of power. The GM, largely or entirely, makes the world and controls everything that isn't the PCs. If you could somehow make them do that for a game they didn't enjoy, I think it's pretty obvious that's not going to be a fun game for anyone. If a player doesn't like the game, and no consensus can be reached, then they can bow out and the game goes on. If the GM does that, and no one wants to run, the game doesn't happen.

I have left games that didn't sound fun to me with no acrimony and no regrets as a player. Those games still happened. If I had been the GM, they may very well not have.

 

[Necropolitan]

So the GM is perfectly cool enforcing it on a group that doesn't want it?

I don't get the asymmetry here. Trying to make a GM run a game they aren't keen on is the worst thing ever. But trying to make players play a game they aren't keen on is fine?

If you don't like what the DM is doing and can't convince them otherwise or compromise without spoiling your fun you should find a different DM.

If a DM doesn't like what their players are doing and can't convince them otherwise or compromise without spoiling their fun they should find different players.

It's completely symmetrical in terms of choosing to roleplay together. What's not symmetrical is that the DM is the one providing the entire campaign so they have the final say.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you don't like what the DM is doing and can't convince them otherwise or compromise without spoiling your fun you should find a different DM.

If a DM doesn't like what their players are doing and can't convince them otherwise or compromise without spoiling their fun they should find different players.

It's completely symmetrical in terms of choosing to roleplay together. What's not symmetrical is that the DM is the one providing the entire campaign so they have the final say.

Okay then. You assert the GM deserves more influence, more deference from the others, deserves to have their interests put before everyone else's because without them, the game can't happen. Try this on for size.

Typical group, five players, one GM. GM meets whatever standards you wish to set for "providing the entire campaign".

But Player A is the one providing the meeting location. Group has already tried other locations when this player couldn't host--never works. Libraries need them to be too quiet and don't let them have snacks. There is no FLGS within driving distance of all players, nor any community center with the kind of space they need--rooms are either too small or MUCH too large, and again often forbid food. This player is centrally located, convenient for everyone to reach, generous with snacks, etc.

By your own logic, surely this player now merits just as much influence as the GM. After all, without them and their investment in the game, there can be no game. They are literally exactly as necessary to the game as the GM is--just as there can be no campaign without the GM, this group can have no campaign without a place to play it.

Do you agree or disagree? If disagree, why?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay then. You assert the GM deserves more influence, more deference from the others, deserves to have their interests put before everyone else's because without them, the game can't happen. Try this on for size.

Typical group, five players, one GM. GM meets whatever standards you wish to set for "providing the entire campaign".

But Player A is the one providing the meeting location. Group has already tried other locations when this player couldn't host--never works. Libraries need them to be too quiet and don't let them have snacks. There is no FLGS within driving distance of all players, nor any community center with the kind of space they need--rooms are either too small or MUCH too large, and again often forbid food. This player is centrally located, convenient for everyone to reach, generous with snacks, etc.

By your own logic, surely this player now merits just as much influence as the GM. After all, without them and their investment in the game, there can be no game. They are literally exactly as necessary to the game as the GM is--just as there can be no campaign without the GM, this group can have no campaign without a place to play it.

Do you agree or disagree? If disagree, why?

That situation is outside of my experience. We've played at a park if if we needed a space. You can eat there. And in any case, if you venue isn't available, I'm fine putting the game off until another time, or playing online.

You're not going to convince me there's ever a situation when the GM should run a game they don't like unless it's some kind of special favor (happened a couple times), or there's money involved.

 

[Scribe]

That situation is outside of my experience. We've played at a park if if we needed a space. You can eat there. And in any case, if you venue isn't available, I'm fine putting the game off until another time, or playing online.

You're not going to convince me there's ever a situation when the GM should run a game they don't like unless it's some kind of special favor (happened a couple times), or there's money involved.

The idea that I could be held hostage at the whims of the players... lol

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That situation is outside of my experience. We've played at a park if if we needed a space. You can eat there. And in any case, if you venue isn't available, I'm fine putting the game off until another time, or playing online.

You're not going to convince me there's ever a situation when the GM should run a game they don't like unless it's some kind of special favor (happened a couple times), or there's money involved.

So it isn't JUST because their presence is essential. Something else is here. Because, as you say, it is not possible to convince you that the GM's sway could ever, for any reason, be eclipsed by another participant being essential. Even if that other person were in fact more essential, it's irrelevant, because being GM is all that matters, period, end of discussion.

So, what is it? It isn't "no GM, no campaign", because you've just said that "no X, no campaign" isn't enough. We've established just before this that it's not "player consensus supports them", because no matter what the players think, the GM always prevails. Nor is it labor, neither in personal expense nor time invested, since that can vary in absolutely enormous ways and can easily be less than that of any single player (e.g. the GM doesn't own the books, one of the players does, or the GM uses another player's account for something etc.)

So the GM isn't privileged by having the support of their players, nor by being an essential requirement for play to proceed, nor by always being the one who does it depends the most. What is the difference?

 

[mixmastashizz]

So it isn't JUST because their presence is essential. Something else is here. Because, as you say, it is not possible to convince you that the GM's sway could ever, for any reason, be eclipsed by another participant being essential. Even if that other person were in fact more essential, it's irrelevant, because being GM is all that matters, period, end of discussion.

So, what is it? It isn't "no GM, no campaign", because you've just said that "no X, no campaign" isn't enough. We've established just before this that it's not "player consensus supports them", because no matter what the players think, the GM always prevails. Nor is it labor, neither in personal expense nor time invested, since that can vary in absolutely enormous ways and can easily be less than that of any single player (e.g. the GM doesn't own the books, one of the players does, or the GM uses another player's account for something etc.)

So the GM isn't privileged by having the support of their players, nor by being an essential requirement for play to proceed, nor by always being the one who does it depends the most. What is the difference?

I didnt think it was controversial to assume the GM by far does the most work in a traditional RPG like Dungeons and Dragons?

I think GMs should listen to their players but I also think they end up being the final arbiter because 1) ultimately someone needs to make a decision if there isn't consensus and 2) theyre the ones running the game. Location, snacks, all that is external to the core structure of a traditional RPG like DnD.

All that said, players should feel empowered to approach the GM with their concerns about a ruling or make suggestions. If there's disagreement there, then either party has a choice: be okay with the DnD theyre playing and keep playing, or decide thats a bridge too far and stop playing.

And no one is forced to play DnD with anyone. If a player feels that a GM is 'abusing' their GM authority or simply doesnt like the playstyle, they should just stop playing with them. And if the GM isn't meshing with the players and their playstyles dont match, that GM does not have to continue running DnD for them.

There are tons of options now, especially in the age of the internet and in a time where DnD is more popular than it ever has been.

I've been lurking in this thread and this feels like there's a lot of pain from games past where neither party were willing to put their money where theyre mouth was and stop playing because it got to where they thought it wasnt fun anymore.